Kirsti,
is the term "part" already defined? I think, if it is defined geometrically, then a sign does not have parts. If a sign is a function that depends on subfunctions, which may be seen as parts, then I think it has the parts sign itself, object, interpretant. But, because you cannot take a sign apart in reality (the subfunctions cannot exist alone), these parts are ideational or virtual ones. But any way you see it, I donot see the connection with the continuum problem (line consisting or not of points).
Best,
Helmut
22. Dezember 2017 um 06:30 Uhr
kirst...@saunalahti.fi
wrote:
kirst...@saunalahti.fi
wrote:
Helmut,
I was not using a metaphor. Nor was I suggesting what you inferred I
did. I just posed two questions, one on sign, one on meaning. Which, of
course, are deeply related. But how?
To my mind both questions are worth careful ponderings. Especially in
connection with this phase in the Lowell lectures.
Peirce was an experimentalist. In philosophy one does not need a
laboratory, but one needs though experiments.
I was inviting to participate in such experimenting. Writing down the
question and searching for answers which logically fit with the
question, is such an experiment.
Simplest math is recommended by CSP as starting point. To clear our
logical muddles and confusions, so I have inferred.
EGs are based on simple geometrical ideas, such as points and lines.
Which are cafefully developed into logical instruments, vehicles for
logical thinking.
Comments?
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 21.12.2017 21:32:
> Gary, Kirsti, List,
> I do not agree, that the geometrical metaphor suits. "Part of",
> geometrically or spatially understood, is only one kind of being a
> part of. Kirsti suggested, that meaning is a part of a sign. But is
> meaning metaphorizable as a point on the line, with the line
> metphorizable as a sign? Ok, a common speech metaphor is "I get the
> point" for "I get the meaning". But still I think, that a functional
> part is something completely different from a spatial, geometrical
> part, a compartment. A sign is a function, not a range with a clear
> spatial border, and there are different laws applying, which are not
> geometrical, though there may be geometrical metaphors, but I think
> they stumble. And: Metaphorization is not analysis. It is poetry.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 21. Dezember 2017 um 15:39 Uhr
> g...@gnusystems.ca
> wrote:
>
> Kirsti, list,
>
> Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has
> points. Peirce has a comment on that in one of my blog posts from last
> month, http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]. By the way,
> according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον for
> _point_ before Euclid.
>
> Gary f.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
> Sent: 21-Dec-17 01:25
>
> Listers,
>
> Perhaps It is good to remember historical changes with names used for
> geometrical point. Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it
> as that which has no parts, and his followers started to that word
> instead of the earlier STIGME . - But (with latin) the Romans & later
> Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their commentaries.
>
> Does a sign have parts? - How about meaning?
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
> ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
> List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
> posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
> message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
> "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
> [2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
I was not using a metaphor. Nor was I suggesting what you inferred I
did. I just posed two questions, one on sign, one on meaning. Which, of
course, are deeply related. But how?
To my mind both questions are worth careful ponderings. Especially in
connection with this phase in the Lowell lectures.
Peirce was an experimentalist. In philosophy one does not need a
laboratory, but one needs though experiments.
I was inviting to participate in such experimenting. Writing down the
question and searching for answers which logically fit with the
question, is such an experiment.
Simplest math is recommended by CSP as starting point. To clear our
logical muddles and confusions, so I have inferred.
EGs are based on simple geometrical ideas, such as points and lines.
Which are cafefully developed into logical instruments, vehicles for
logical thinking.
Comments?
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 21.12.2017 21:32:
> Gary, Kirsti, List,
> I do not agree, that the geometrical metaphor suits. "Part of",
> geometrically or spatially understood, is only one kind of being a
> part of. Kirsti suggested, that meaning is a part of a sign. But is
> meaning metaphorizable as a point on the line, with the line
> metphorizable as a sign? Ok, a common speech metaphor is "I get the
> point" for "I get the meaning". But still I think, that a functional
> part is something completely different from a spatial, geometrical
> part, a compartment. A sign is a function, not a range with a clear
> spatial border, and there are different laws applying, which are not
> geometrical, though there may be geometrical metaphors, but I think
> they stumble. And: Metaphorization is not analysis. It is poetry.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 21. Dezember 2017 um 15:39 Uhr
> g...@gnusystems.ca
> wrote:
>
> Kirsti, list,
>
> Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has
> points. Peirce has a comment on that in one of my blog posts from last
> month, http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]. By the way,
> according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον for
> _point_ before Euclid.
>
> Gary f.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
> Sent: 21-Dec-17 01:25
>
> Listers,
>
> Perhaps It is good to remember historical changes with names used for
> geometrical point. Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it
> as that which has no parts, and his followers started to that word
> instead of the earlier STIGME . - But (with latin) the Romans & later
> Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their commentaries.
>
> Does a sign have parts? - How about meaning?
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
> ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
> List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
> posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
> message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
> "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
> [2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
